Lilian Nwa

First discovered in 1789, Enceladus is the sixth-largest moon of Saturn, a sizable distinction for a planet that has sixty-two known moons of which only fifty-three are officially named.

Previous data from NASA’s Cassini spacecraft in 2005 showed “eruptions of water geysers” at the surface of Enceladus suggesting that the moon might have water beneath its frozen crust, likely in an area surrounding its core. Because the presence of water serves as a kind of litmus test for the potential of life in space, scientists dubbed the moon, “one of the best potential sites for hosting life in the solar system” along with the moon Mimas and Titan.

Now, a new report published in the March 12th issue of the prestigious journal Nature, takes Cassini’s previous findings further. According to the authors, detected “grains [of] nanometer-sized SiO2 (silica) particles, [were] initially embedded in icy grains emitted from Enceladus’ subsurface waters and released by sputter erosion.” Moreover, they determined that because of the composition and size of the particles, they would have to come from “high-temperature (>90 degrees C) hydrothermal reactions” capable of quickly transporting products from the ocean floor to approximately 24 miles above. As reported by Space.com, this mechanism is similar to the action of hydrothermal vents on Earth’s seafloor and thus, Enceladus now has the distinction of being the first location outside of earth where scientists have detected ongoing hydrothermal activity.

To arrive at their conclusion, the team of scientists used computer models to determine the path of the silica grains. Their models showed that the particles likely came from Saturn’s E ring; however, Saturn’s E ring is made up of mostly small ice grains and so the scientists realized that “the source of the particles in the E ring [was] Enceladus.”

Lab tests then confirmed that these particles could only be generated under very specific physical conditions, namely very high temperatures, depths of at least 24 miles and a pH greater than 8.5.

Interestingly, the localization of the first non-Earth hydrothermal vent proved surprising to the authors. As lead author Hsiang-Wen Sean Hsu said in a statement, “It is the existence of high-temperature rock-water reactions at the present time that surprises me the most, as we would expect Enceladus to be a frozen world…It means that there is still a big knowledge gap in understanding how solar system bodies evolve.”

Hsu continued that the main source of heat is likely an effect known as “tidal heating.” In the case of Enceladus, Saturn’s gravitational pull so deforms the moon that rocks are heated, though to generate the high levels of heat predicted to be at Enceladus’ core, there must be another source of heat, potentially a radioactive material.

This finding is sure to increase interest in Enceladus as a potential harbor for life. In his statement, Hsu mentions that hydrothermal systems fulfill three criteria to sustain life, namely they produce energy, nutrients and liquid water. Surprisingly, we might come closer to finding life in space by examining extreme areas of the solar system, so unlike our own.

Pope Francis has not been one to mince words or refrain from sharing his thoughts. In December, he accused the Curia (the senior governing group of the Vatican consisting of cardinals, bishops and priests) of suffering from “spiritual Alzheimer’s” and of “existential schizophrenia” though he did say that such problems pose a danger to all Christians including himself.

Now, Francis has turned his attention to climate change in a move that will again anger staunch conservatives who were already infuriated by Francis’ prior call to ease global policy via state intervention in the market economy.

According to the website thinkprogress.org, Francis made a biblical case for addressing climate change when he told a large crowd in Rome that, “Creation is not a property, which we can rule over at will…[It] is a gift…that God has given us, so that we care for it and we use it for the benefit of all, always with great respect and gratitude.” Francis continued by calling destruction of the planet a “sinful act” akin to telling God that his creation is faulty or inadequate.

Now, the Pope is encouraging world leaders and approximately 1.2 billion Catholics to take an active role in protecting the planet and thus preventing climate change that too often disrupts ecologies and peoples’ livelihoods. According to Seattle Pi, Francis will soon visit the Philippines’ city Tacloban, which was devastated in 2012 by Super-Typhoon Haiyan. Many believe he will subsequently release an encyclical (a papal letter sent to bishops and intended for wide circulation) concerning the threat of global warming.

As mentioned, American conservatives have not received this news kindly. In fact, Fox News correspondent Doug McKelway reported that the Pope had aligned himself with “a few environmental extremists who favor widespread population control and wealth redistribution.”

Still, the Pope’s call for action seems to have widespread support among most Catholics and Christians generally. In 2006, the Evangelical Climate Initiative warned its members that poor nations and individuals are most susceptible to the challenge and threat of global warming. Christians, the organizers said, who are naturally called to care for their neighbors must then care about climate change.

Altogether, it seems then that Catholics, along with other Christians, individuals of other faiths and those with no faith, should join efforts to protect the planet from climate change. In our collective efforts, we can decrease the burden borne by the poorest nations and individuals with the most to lose.

Individuals are often used to thinking of our universe and its stars as infinitely old. However, 2015 research from the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite suggests that our stars are likely 100 million years younger than scientists had previously assumed.

To give some context, scientists believe the Big Bang happened 400 million years before the first stars were created. The very first galaxies were also created at this time. Our solar system was created about 4.6 billion years after the Big Bang. Thus, it’s important to realize that 100 million years isn’t that much of a stretch of time when putting the order of events into context. However, this research is significant in that it changes the rate at which everything was created, since stars took 100 million fewer years to form.

The researchers arrived at this new conclusion by studying the cosmic microwave background, or the remaining light left over from the Big Bang. This light is manifest as a “static haze of light that fills the entire universe” and given that it has continued to radiate throughout the universe, scientists can study its signals in order to better determine the history of certain space events. From their data, the scientists concluded that there existed a “period of light” (following the universe’s dark ages) approximately 100 million years earlier than previous estimates. This may change everything about the origins of our universe.

As Marco Bersanelli, one of the main collaborators for this research said in a statement, “While these 100 million years may seem negligible compared to the universe’s age of almost 14 billion years, they make a significant difference when it comes to the formation of the first stars,” which came after that first period of light.

Beyond lighting up the dark sky, stars played an important part in the formation of our early universe. According to Space.com author Calla Cofield, not only did the formation of stars and galaxies help to end “the universe’s ‘dark ages,” but their formation also dispelled a fog of hydrogen atoms that had filled the cosmos at the time and blocked most wavelengths of light (the reason why the universe was dark).

Furthermore, Cofield writes that the stars and galaxies then created photons, which destroyed atoms in a process known as reionization. This process also helped to create galaxies known as quasars with black holes at their centers, some of which have masses two billion times that of the Sun.

Another collaborator and member of the Planck Collaboration, Francois Bouchet, told Space.com that though the researchers have identified the likely time when stars and galaxies began, scientists still do not know when specific stars were formed. In particular, some researchers have identified rare stars that were likely formed before the end of the dark ages.

Other questions about our universe still remain. For example, scientists are interested in learning how long it may have taken to form light and subsequently the stars and galaxies. As Bouchet said, “Later on, we will want to know what is the duration of that period. We [also] want to be able to say when 20 percent of the universe was deionized, and then 30 percent… that’s the ultimate goal.”

Recently, the FDA approved Zarxio – the first drug of its kind to be approved.

Sandoz, a Novartis company, is a “world leader in generic pharmaceuticals.” Generic drugs are officially described as non-brand products, which are expected to be comparable to the brand/reference drug product in its dosage form, quality, strength and intended use. However, complaints have been lodged against certain generic drugs, which have been shown to have different bioequivalencies (the rate and extent to which a drug is absorbed) than the branded drug, for example. This in turn can affect how much and how long a drug stays active in an individual’s system and thus the ultimate effect and usefulness of the drug.

Regardless, the day this drug went on the US market marked an important development in the pharmaceutical industry as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar drug for use in the United States, a move that will enable to creation of an entire class of “complex and costly drugs” at a fraction of the cost. The drug, named Zarxio, is produced by Sandoz and will be used to prevent infections in cancer patients who receive chemotherapy, as described in the New York Times.

Zarxio is biologically similar to a brand drug known as Neupogen, which is made by Amgen and has been used in Europe since 2009. Until recently, however, the New York Times reports that there was “no regulatory pathway” by which to bring “approximate copies of drugs” to market.

This situation changed in January when a panel of scientists unanimously voted to approve the use of Zarxio in the U.S. This was a landmark decision in part because biosimilar drugs mimic a biologic medical product, but unlike small-molecule drugs, biologics possess significant molecular complexity and are especially sensitive to manufacturing processes. Thus, they are believed to be more difficult to “mimic” than their small-molecule counterparts.

Still, Dr. Margret A. Hamber, the commissioner of the FDA, said in a statement “Biosimilars will provide access to important therapies for patients who need them.” This will enable millions of Americans to afford potentially lifesaving drugs. Beyond saving the lives of patients, Express Scripts has estimated that the approval of Zarxio will potentially save the US $5.7 billion in drug costs over the next decade and if other biosimilars are approved, over $200 billion.

Though the physicians who approved the use of Zarxio did not see any differences between this biosimilar and the brand drug, there may still be challenges in convincing physicians to use the non-brand drug. As well, biosimilars may run into the same problems as certain small-molecule drugs, which do not always mimic the effects of the brand drug. For now, life-saving therapies will likely be available to more people in the coming months, which is a positive development.

It has been some time Zarxio has come onto the US drug market. It hasn’t made a large impact as far as the world outside the medical community. What have you heard about Zarxio? Has it been important in your life?

To encourage publishers to use Facebook to distribute their content online, Facebook is allowing publishers to “keep all the revenue from certain advertisements,” as reported by The Wall Street Journal. As well, Facebook hopes to bring this content to audiences faster using its newest development, Instant Articles.

Currently, it take approximately 8 seconds for links opened on a mobile device to become visible. To Facebook, that’s too slow. Instant Articles aims to shorten wait time by not rerouting users to another domain. They can stay right on Facebook. Already, the company plans to start hosting content from companies such as BuzzFeed, the New York Times, National Geographic and others.

Despite what may be seen as Facebook’s altruism towards publishers and its users, Tech Times warns that the move “isn’t only for users.”

As the report on Instant Articles continues, “The social media network will likely end up making money through other advertising means because of the fact that users will not be directed to a different site and will instead stay on Facebook.” As well, some publishers are wary of associating themselves too tightly with Facebook via Instant Articles. Already, research cited in the WSJ showed approximately 60 percent of the Big Web publishers get referrals through Facebook. Additionally, if users stay on Facebook exclusively with the implementation of Instant Articles, some publishers might lose referral traffic to their own websites.

For now the revenue-sharing agreement is meant to entice those who might otherwise be skeptical of this new venture. As carefully described in PC Magazine, “If publishers let Facebook host the content, they’ll get to keep all of the revenues from ads… If Facebook takes care of the advertising, then the revenue returns to the 70-30 split (publisher-Facebook).” Beyond lost traffic, hosting content on Facebook might also mean publishers will be unable to obtain important statistics about their readership. Facebook perform the types of analyses and keep much of the data private.

Currently, it is unclear when the new development will be available to publishers, but some believe it might be very soon. Interestingly, CNET recently reported that Instant Articles is not the only new development at Facebook. The company is also testing a feature that will enable users to prioritize the updates of specific friends, giving people more opportunities to remain on the site.

The future of web publishing remains up in the air. Writers have more options for reaching readers than ever before: ebooks, a blog hosted on another website (like Facebook), their own website or traditional publishing. The internet is changing. The influence of social media keeps growing and growing. It’s a question every writer must ask: “Should I host my own content, get a publisher or put my content on someone else’s website?” There are benefits to all options. However, Facebook would do well to get 30 percent of all revenue generated my someone else’s content. Facebook definitely knows what its doing by now.

Zooming out, is it even appropriate that Facebook have such a control over the internet? So much content being in one place could have negative repercussions. What do you think?

It’s been an interesting time for the technology behemoth, Apple Inc. Recently the company, which is the largest U.S. company based on its market value, joined the Dow Jones industrial average when it replaced AT&T. And earlier this year, Tim Cook announced the arrival of Apple Watch, the much anticipated addition to Apple’s already impressive line of products.

Now, Apple’s shareholders have refocused their energies on purchasing Tesla, the electric car company founded by billionaire Elon Musk. When one shareholder “flat out told Cook” to buy the company, Cook responded with, “I’d love Tesla to pick up CarPlay.” CarPlay is a technological platform available in select cars, which enables individuals to use their iPhones while driving. After pausing, Cook added, “Was that a good way to avoid the question? Hey there are some perks to being CEO.”

But what are the advantages of such a purchase? If Apple were to purchase Tesla, Apple’s “worth [would gain] a competitive edge,” and would be able to take advantage of “a brain trust” of some of the best designers, engineers and general user experience experts in the U.S. and perhaps the world.

Interestingly, journalist Alexander C. Kaufman writing for the Huffington Post started an article by declaring the exact opposite: “Apple probably won’t buy Tesla, no matter how badly shareholders want to see the pair unit.” Quoting analysts at the Huffington Post, Kaufman provides three main reasons why the deal is unlikely to happen.
To begin with, Apple develops products “in-house,” and usually acquires smaller technology companies in order to “absorb their technology” and turn it into something else. Though an Apple car is possible, it’s unclear if Apple wants to join the automotive business.

Additionally, Apple’s products are conceptualized in California, but assembled at third-party factories in China, for example. Tesla builds its own instruments and CEO Elon Musk “has kept a tight grip on [the company’s supply chain,” a system that defers markedly from how Apple operates.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Elon Musk is unlikely to sell the company, according to the Huffington Post. However, PC Magazine reports that last year, Elon Musk mentioned that his company ” ‘had conversations with Apple,’ but said he could not comment on ‘whether those revolved around any kind of acquisition.’

In the end, the reasons mentioned above for why Apple will not purchase Tesla are based on one organization’s assessment and Tesla could very well bear the Apple logo sometime this year. But at least for now, Apple’s shareholders will have to content themselves with the company’s continued success, which is not a terrible position to be in.

Just yesterday, Tesla released it’s self-driving update. Yes, that’s right, as of October 15th, 2015, there are automated cars on the road. Will Apple try to buy Tesla so Elon Musk will stop using Google Maps and begin using Apple? Can Apple afford to buy Tesla? After the recent release of the Model X, Tesla seems to just be getting more and more valuable. Apple and Tesla… possibly the two biggest names in technology.